Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday April 19, 2012 @11:00PM
from the I-warned-you dept.

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Khosrow Zarefarid warned of a security flaw in Iran's banking system providing affected institutions the details, including 1,000 captured bank accounts. When the affected banks, including the largest state institutions didn't respond, Khosrow hacked 3 million accounts across at least 22 banks. He then dropped these details — including card numbers and PINs — on his blog. Three Iranian banks Saderat, Eghtesad Novin, and Saman have already warned customers to change their debit card PINs. 'Zarefarid is reportedly no longer in Iran, though it is unclear when he left.'"

Interestingly, more than likely this is a joint operation between the United States and Israel. They have tried to get Iran trade embargoed for a long time, and more than likely are pissed off that Iran has developed their own technology to process payments and POS transactions. It is similar to USA's actions with North Korea, just that Iran is even more developed country. Both Israel and USA have been extremely aggressive towards Iran, despite the fact that I see no such aggression coming from them. I just think it's interesting.

Yeah and arming hizbullah, hamas and having their fingers deep in both groups along with previously arming the PLO is 'no aggressive action' right.. Oh wait, let me guess the Jews control both groups.

Right, it's not like we ever did shit like give the Mujahedin weapons like stinger missiles. We never gave fucking crates full of guns to South American dictators and/or revolutionaries. We never trained people to invade Cuba. We never started something on the order of half a dozen illegal wars in the last 60 years.

Stop fucking talking like America is a shining beacon of justice and freedom, because we are just as shitty as nearly every other goddamned country in the fucking world. We just have better marketing.

Well that's an american problem, then again you only need to understand the context of those situations too. But I'm sure you don't think that hamas or hizbullah who both agree that slaughtering all civilians and driving the jews are just lies and propaganda despite that their leadership and in some cases their charters have this spelled right out. The only person that thinks America is a shining beacon are the ones that like to gloss the truth. Then again, the majority of people don't realize that the w

then again you only need to understand the context of those situations too.

It's odd that we need to understand the context when it comes to Western support for "terrorists", but when it comes to non-Western governments supporting "terrorism", then the context isn't important...

Do you have any evidence to the contrary*? There's plenty of evidence supporting that proposition.

Which proposition - that Iran is a "peaceful paradise"?

That doesn't stand to even a cursory examination of the Iranian political system - it's not like they hide the fact that it's based on the (inherently undemocratic) principle of velayat e-faqih - essentially, a theocracy. Or how about death penalty prescribed for homosexuality, or stoning to death for adultery?

I'm not particularly fond of moral relativism. Yes, I do believe that Western countries being democratic and secular and having due process of law and all these things - even if they don't always work 100%, and the implementation is imperfect - makes them better than Iran. Sure, it's my subjective assessment, but I'll stand by it - and so do most other Westerners. I claim moral high ground by my measures and the measures of my society, because there's no higher authority.

I don't believe that direct military aggression against Iran is warranted at this point. There are plenty worse countries in the world, after all, even in that same region. I just don't see the point in extolling them as some kind of paradise because they're so anti-Western and all. Most things about the modern Western world are good, not bad. Some that are bad, are even worse in Iran (and China etc).

I take it you don't know what the human rights panel is there for, and why those countries were on it? That's the only possible reason for your mistaken thinking they're there to advise on how best to provide human rights, not on how best to fix the fucked-up shit happening in their countries. Get a grip - I know it's fun to have a go at the UN, but at least make the attempt to understand it before having a go. That way you can bring up legitimate issues with the UN, instead of childishly laughing at wh

I take it you don't know what the human rights panel is there for, and why those countries were on it?

You do know why the UN is there for and why all countries are supposed to be a part of it? It's set up to be a soap box forum for countries to talk, not as a world government used to control things. I think that is what the parent was getting at. The UN is there so countries and get together, talk about Palestine and perhaps come up with a plan between themselves that originates in the UN, not as an organization to hand stuff over to.

Fantastic idea! Let the UN solve it! Wait, what? They already did? 65 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine [wikipedia.org]
Well, damn those Israelis for pissing on the UN and rejecting the Partition Plan and waging war on innoc... Wait, what? The Israelis agreed to the Partition Plan? It was actually the Arabs who rejected it and started the war?
Well, of course the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan! It was an unfair plan that deprives the Palestinian People of their rightfu

Well, of course the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan! It was an unfair plan that deprives the Palestinian People of their rightful lands and...

"Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56 percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it,[41] and remained a minority of the population."

From the very Wikipedia article you link to. Would you agree to a plan that gives 56% of your country's land to an ethnic minority that currently owns only 7%? Why?

Wait, what? The Partition Plan would have created a Palastinian State that's larger than the current Palastinian claims for statehood?

You are criticising Palestinians in 2012 for accepting that they already lost the majority of the land, and negot

Yes, I would have accepted the plan. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that had Palestinian leadership at the time had been free to act in the best interests of the Palestinians, they would have accepted too. But, they were not free to act. They were subject to a lot of pressure from Arab nations, and by many accounts weren't even seriously considering statehood but just looking to be absorbed by neighboring states.
When you say 56% land for 7% of the population it sure sounds bad. However, a huge

iran plays the game too, although not too well(and they're amateurs - remember the regime doesn't have that long history and when they came to power they pretty much got rid of everyone working with international relations and operations who had any experience - making their plots like bad b-movies like trying to hire zetas or selling guns to some african rebel). mostly iran is pre-occupied with dealing with their domestic dissidents, throwing people to jail for porno and trying to make foreign export ends meet by any means their amateurs can think of and generally just being petty denialists. remember, as far as reports go and one outside the country can figure out most of the bomb attacks within iran have been actually carried out by iranian factions working toward overthrowing their petty government.

so, historically - what little there is of it - irans current regime has been quite aggressive both internationally and domestically, carrying out murders and attempts at them. what sets them apart from libya is that they're not so poor and they have more people and not just desert.

pissed off at a POS system? fuck, no, that's not the reason behind this hack, the reason is that it was hackable and they didn't fix it, they had time to fix it - but this guy did wise when he got out of the country because irans government has a history of outright killing guys like him.

If Anonymous/LulzSec, etc. does it against an American company, then they're heroes here on/. This guy does it against Iranian businesses and he's a villain.
I agree with you on this, Evil is as Evil does regardless of where it does it.

If Anonymous/LulzSec, etc. does it against an American company, then they're heroes here on/. This guy does it against Iranian businesses and he's a villain.
I agree with you on this, Evil is as Evil does regardless of where it does it.

Slashdot posters are typically full of it, but I have never seen a situation where Anon/LulzSec get generally praised in/. for dumping millions of American bank user accounts info to the plain web for all to see. Citations plz?

Nobody's making him out to be a hero, but tossing all the blame on him is a cop out. "Poor helpless banks were victimized by no good hacker"... that misses the entire point, which should be that security needs to be fixed.

I'm not sure how you logically derived that line above that you wrote from what the other AC posted (and which you were replying to):

Sorry, the banks are negligent and should be hauled over coals for this, but that makes him the fucking villain of it.

Iran is a rich Muslim theocracy with some attibutes of a Republic. North Korea is a poverty-stricken pseudo-monarchy with attributes of Stalinism. They are about as likely to be on the speaking terms with each other as Henry Kissinger with Alexander Chikatilo.

Exactly this. Iran and North Korea don't even do that much business together. They might do when necessary, but the two countries are otherwise completely different. It blows my mind how little US people know about rest of the world. Iran does more business and shares thinking more with Russia and CIS countries. North Korea does business and shares thinking with China and Myanmar.

Please do not generalize quite so freely. While there is clearly a large block of drooling ditto-heads here, who shape their world view from watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, some of us actually have a much broader scope when it comes to our sources for such information.

Reminder that there are still Americans who believe Iran and/or sadam-era Iraq are/where in bed with Al quaida.

I mean, forget that Sadam was a secular authoritarian who used the fight against islamism as the pretext for his purges (Baath are arabic socialist, and like most socialists dont have a lot of time for theocracy) and Iran are Shiia, whom Al Quaida consider to be heretical.

Of course the US administration suffer this same sort of blindness as well. The fact that Iraq will fall into the hands of Iran, almost innevitably should have been obvious to anyone who understood the implications of shifting the power balance from the Suni to the Shiia in Iraq.

Of course when your in the business of *creating* enemies, sometimes you do get to dictate terms. Once you piss off enough people, chances are they might put aside their differences and hang together in mutual defence.

Honestly if the US gets involved in many more wars I can honestly see a day when a lot of these powers put their heads together to create an Anti-NATO that should scare the hell out of anyone in the west.

Its best if we just backed the fuck out of there and let nature take its course. When was the last time someone wanted to invade Switzerland?

Because one of the most important conditions for ANY person, corporation or Government to be doing business with any bank which has either primary or regional headquarters in Switzerland (read: most of them) is that they lay the fuck off of Switzerland? Plus the fact that it the Swiss have a higher number of firearms in private hands than in police or government hands - 3.4 million versus less than 360,000. Are you going to invade a country where half the population are trained in, and have immediate access

Wars aren't fought with ground troops anymore? Really? You mean Armor, Artillery, and Infantry are all obsolete because of UAVs? Wow, it's amazing what keen military insights I can learn here.
Let me guess, you've never served in the military in any branch. Seriously, do yourself a favor and read up on "combined arms" before you make any military related post.

Depends on the objective. If the objective is to capture and control ground, then you need troops. If the objective is to simply obliterate an enemy, then you don't. You need bombers, missiles, and artillery. While the last one is ground-based, it also gets kept far away from the front line and so is at no risk of ground-based attack. If you're desperate, there are nukes. The old war of obliteration isn't politically feasable any more though - no matter how hostile the target has been, the world will react

Depends on the objective. If the objective is to capture and control ground, then you need troops. If the objective is to simply obliterate an enemy, then you don't.

...The old war of obliteration isn't politically feasable any more though

so... you do need troops? Or you don't? Or... if you could blow everything up, you wouldn't, but you can't blow everything up, so you do, so it doesn't REALLY depend, since you can't really choose your objective.

Depends who'se doing the attacking. If it's a country that cares about maintaining good international relations, like the US or any country in Europe, then you need troops. If, however, you couldn't care less about how the world sees you, then you can start the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets or even break out the nuclear bombs. Currently the only countries in the latter class, like North Korea, are run by people who know full well that if they started a war they would lose it.

You don't take over a country for their resources anymore. You take over their people and use them to accomplish your goals about the resources. That means you can't just kill everyone. But if everyone can defend themselves, then you will have to kill everyone. And to that means, it is pointless to try, as you will never take control of the people.

This is why a country without a government is so darn hard to take over. What good is governing a country without people or people who abide by the rules?

Wars arent fought with ground troops anymore. Whats a machine gun going to do to a Hellfile missile sent from a predator?

They most certainly are. War for the next 50 years or so (unless things get really bad) will be primarily long term, low intensity conflict like what we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya (admittedly we got lucky with Libya, as it was relatively short). Conflicts such as these tend to stretch on for years. See the Sri Lankan insurgency that lasted roughly 25 years. Insurgencies are usually fought with small arms; the largest weapons usually available to insurgents are large-caliber machine guns, mortars, and RPGs. Combine this with the fact that most insurgencies cannot afford a large stand-up fight, and you get a lot of hit and run contact. Thompson, the man who pretty much led the British during the counterinsurgency in Malaya back in the 50s (and who pretty much wrote the bible on COIN doctrine; he started it all) realized that you cannot do sweep and destroy methods to defeat an insurgency; you must use sweep and control. To defeat an insurgency, you have to control ground. To control ground, you need group troops. While armed drones are good for patrolling and attacks on vehicles or fixed positions (camps, emplacements, etc), this is very expensive, and in many cases overkill. Most states cannot afford technology such this, and tactically armed troops on the ground usually make much more sense anyway, as even in predator strikes troops still have to go in afterward to look for intelligence.

Sorry, that is incorrect. And I currently do work supporting the war in Afghanistan which I just came back from in '11, so this is the experience I am talking from.

Take the two wars the US is currently involved in. The war on "terror" and supporting S Korea which is technically still at war with N Korea. Yes, both still involve boots-on-ground action, but everything you mentioned is in the past. Which is correct. But is the old ways of fighting wars. My statement of "anymore" means the bulk of the pushing

All of these wars are about one thing: resources. Thats it. It has nothing to do with democracy, religion, west vs. whoever, etc. Those are all guises for the boob tube crowd. It is all about, as are all wars, resources.

Not making this realization is the fundamental flaw in all analyses of these issues. You run off on a tangent about how the stated goals make no sense and we need to this and that, its not working, blah blah blah. However, if you understand the true motivations, it works like a charm. Not only are we destabilizing the region, we are enriching powerful people/corporations by funneling American tax dollars through a war torn state, right back into the pockets of the wealthy. Its a great money laundering scheme for stealing from the people, and it creates a destabilized region where military might is the only "solution" to peace. Which in turn gives access to the resources and keeps them available for the nations with the most powerful military.

Iran is a rich Muslim theocracy with some attibutes of a Republic. North Korea is a poverty-stricken pseudo-monarchy with attributes of Stalinism. They are about as likely to be on the speaking terms with each other as Henry Kissinger with Alexander Chikatilo.

Ah, so about the same speaking terms as the president of cuba and the president of the usa?

Not really true. Iran and North Korea are very much in the 'enemy of my enemy' stage of life, and they are both quite friendly with russia and to a lesser extent both with china.

They may not be ideologically aligned to each other, but given their mutual enemy and mutual ally, they're willing to talk to each other. Who do you think is still buying all this iranian oil that is being extracted now that the previous markets can't and won't buy it? China and North korea. Who does North Korea sell missiles and technology to? (The Taepodong series specifically, as well as some shorter range surface to surface missiles), Yemen, Syria, Iran and a few others. The north koreans need currency, the iranians have currency, the north koreans need oil, the iranians have oil, the iranians need missiles to strike Saudi, Iraq and Israel, the north koreans have missiles.

They are as far apart ideologically as Stalin and Hitler, and yet for years those two managed to get along oddly well, exchanging training and agreeing to carve up poland together. Iran and North Korea may not be all that ideologically compatible, but they have nothing to particularly drive a wedge between them (unlike stalin and hitler). They each have things the other wants, no directly overlapping or conflicting interests and a shared enemy in the united states, who, helpfully, binned them together in an 'axis of evil', and if they weren't playing nice before, that gave them a good kick in the ass to start playing nice with each other.

They very much are on strong speaking terms and technological exchange, through russia, through china and at sea. They are both under heavy sanctions meaning their selection of possible trade partners is rather limited, and that means they take what they can get. If you think they at least up until recently weren't on very good terms you should pull your head out of the sand. The new North Korea, under Kim Jong Un, and the current state of affairs in Iran, along with the situations in Burma and Pakistan throw into question any future agreements. A Burma out of chinas sphere of influence, and a pakistan not interested in technological exchanges significantly limit their access to resources and cash, and might significantly shake up their desired alliances.

That said, you're right, in that they have no real long term collaborative goals. At the first opportunity I'm sure both of them would love to do business with someone else. But until a better opportunity comes along you go with the friends your enemies have given you.

I'm not sure the north korean government cares about a bunch of starving mostly illiterate peasants (who are illiterate, starving, and peasants because of government policy). If they wanted food China and Russia I'm sure could spare the small fraction of a percentage it would take to feed the couple of million starving people in the DPRK anyway. Between them China and Russia feed 1.5 billion people, the 23 million in North Korea, who are in large part still fed on their own isn't exactly a huge burden.

And yet, both got the technology to produce weapons-grade uranium from the same Pakistani, A.Q. Khan. Don't assume that differing political systems and ideologies is an absolute block against cooperation. I think it's ridiculous that they'd have this guy in North Korea; Iran isn't exactly a country with a need to offshore their state security apparatus, nor do they have some fanatical devotion to not saying anything that is technically untrue.

His trial is in progress. And yes, if it is found that he committed treason, then he can legally be executed. But as right as it would be, it would be a PR nightmare, so he'd probably just get life at Leavenworth, which not a fun place to spend the next 50-60 years.

And we wonder why the general public has a sense of distrust and suspicion regarding "hackers".Iran should be groveling before Allah that it's not the 40's and he wasn't trying to warn them about nukes.

And we wonder why the general public has a sense of distrust and suspicion regarding "hackers".

"When the affected banks, including the largest state institutions didn't respond" is the part that worries me, instead. The hacker in this case was just trying to help and pointed out a REALLY bad security flaw, but since the general public didn't know about it the institutions apparently decided to just ignore it. Publishing all the details was a bad move, that I definitely agree with, but atleast it got the institutions' attention, too bad that this will be spun in the media as the hacker's fault and not

And we wonder why the general public has a sense of distrust and suspicion regarding "hackers".

"When the affected banks, including the largest state institutions didn't respond" is the part that worries me, instead. The hacker in this case was just trying to help and pointed out a REALLY bad security flaw, but since the general public didn't know about it the institutions apparently decided to just ignore it. Publishing all the details was a bad move, that I definitely agree with, but atleast it got the institutions' attention, too bad that this will be spun in the media as the hacker's fault and not the institutions' fault, though.

hmm, you think it's a bad move. So what you are saying is, if the public doesn't know about it, it's good security? You do realize that if the dude who warned them found it, anyone could of found it. So while the public may not know about it, criminals might. So, in my view, the hacker did good, because the people in charge weren't listening, so it made them listen.

I don't know what world you live in, but in this world, there isn't only 1 smart person, there is many. When 1 person finds a flaw, you should figure that other people have found the flaw. And someone is going to exploit the flaw to steal something, because that is how the world rolls.

I don't know about the OP reasoning, but in my opinion, publishing full details including full card numbers and pin codes was a bad idea. Publish enough to demonstrate that you do in fact have the data, but not enough to make it trivial for someone to use the data. Partial card number, enough that the cardholder can be reasonably certain that's his card and the last 2-3 digits of the pin. It's one thing to go public and embarrass the banks, it's another to expose 3M customers to fraud and abuse by making it easy for the crooks.

I know it's standard practice on/. not to RTFA, but it even says in the first sentence of the summary that this guy demonstrated the legitimacy of his findings with 1,000 captured accounts.

Yes, he exposed sensitive data. Data that was already exposed by this vulnerability. Now at least everyone knows that their data isn't safe, as opposed to before when there was an illusion of security.

not that i think the banks were innocent for a second, but the whole point of security is to prevent what this guy did, so he has gone beyond simply demonstrating a flaw. he's taken advantage of it in the same way as any criminal might. he may not personally empty the accounts, but he may as well have by publishing the means to access them.

yes the vulnerability already existed, but he merely took advantage of it like a criminal that security is intended to combat.

Now at least everyone knows that their data isn't safe, as opposed to before when there was an illusion of security

Do note that he only presented those account details to these institutions in question, he didn't publish them anywhere. He could have done that instead, he didn't need to publish all 3 million just to prove the flaw exists.

I never said he shouldn't have disclosed publicly, I said he exposed too much information. There was no need to expose full account information, card number, and pin. He only needed to disclose enough to demonstrate that he did in fact possess the information, therefore, the vulnerability was real, and that the banks were ignoring it.

Full disclosure doesn't mean disclosing everyone's information thus making it easier for the crooks. You can do full disclosure in a more responsible fashion

So, in my view, the hacker did good, because the people in charge weren't listening, so it made them listen.

I think you missed the point. He didn't "make them listen". The banks haven't fixed the security problem. All they have done is asked their customers to change their PIN as well as blocking some ATMs.

So, no, this isn't a good move, because all it has done is caused three million card users to be further annoyed as their cards are still no safer than before - in fact less so, because there is a proof of concept out there now with guaranteed ROI - they can't get to their own cash as easily as they have to go

So, in my view, the hacker did good, because the people in charge weren't listening, so it made them listen.

I think you missed the point. He didn't "make them listen". The banks haven't fixed the security problem. All they have done is asked their customers to change their PIN as well as blocking some ATMs.

How do you know this? Are you in Iran and working for the banks? Even the article notes that they might have silently fixed, or are in the process of fixing them. Most of the ATM's have stopped giving out money. I think that clearly shows they are working on it. Or do you think they will just close it all down and never start working again?

What he should have done is gone to the credit agencies like Visa and Mastercard who would likely cut off the banks accounts in very quick order, thereby forcing the banks to fix the security hole. Even though a debit visa isn't touching the bank's money, the big credit companies take these things rather seriously if it has their name on it.

Security through obscurity? Seriously bad idea when it comes to dealing with other peoples' money. You just don't know who is the wrong person to piss off, until their card details (and their PIN!?) are published...

So what you are saying is, if the public doesn't know about it, it's good security?

No, I clearly said the institutions in question think so. I do not have any idea how you missed that.

You do realize that if the dude who warned them found it, anyone could of found it.

Yes, but then again, I never claimed anything in the contrary. I am merely saying that he could've published only a handful of details like e.g. the name and address of the person holding the card, the beginning and the end of the card number and 2 of the PIN digits. That would've been enough, that would've proved beyond doubt that there is a very serious security flaw that needs to be fixed, and with missin

Publishing all the details was a bad move, that I definitely agree with, but atleast it got the institutions' attention, too bad that this will be spun in the media as a plot by Israel and the West to destabilize Iran's economy and not the institutions' fault, though.

Let a lesson from this be that no matter where you are on the globe managerial types will typically disregard known and reported vulnerabilities until it is too late, generally failing to assess risk properly and address reported findings.

Points of fact:1) He didn't hack any banks. He was working in a payment processing company that had monopoly in Iran.2) The card numbers and pin numbers were kept in clear text in their internal systems3) He did complain about it repeatedly to his bosses, who blew him off4) He posted the pin numbers and account numbers to a blog. Pin numbers have some digits before and after; They are not quite usable in person. In order to use them online a second pin is required which was not posted.5) the Payment processing center's license has been revoked, and all people are in panic trying to change their pin numbers. The only action all ATMs allow is pin change.

Just when I thought Iran was the safest place to stash my money now THIS happens? Where should I go next? Somalia?

No!!!No, No, No!

Nigeria is the country where your money is safest. Here's what you do: Send the money to me personally and I will place it with all the other money I have for distribution on behalf of "Lotto"winners", "Deceased Estate Distribution A/C's" etc, you money is safe with me as I am a very honourable person, do this quickly before someone tries to cheat you out of all your money!Honour

He didn't hack into the system. He just stole some information from the company he was working at, Eniac (eniac-psp.net) and put it on the Internet, because he couldn't make money out of it. He blackmailed the bankers to get 1$ for every of the 3 million accounts, and they refused to pay the money.Now, he's claiming to be a hacker!

http://ircard.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Click older about ten times, he posted them in plaintext without text wrapping, once you click one of the links.
The reason this isn't all over the net is because it is useless to anyone not in Iran.